Re: Adventures with TB
Hello John, A reminder of what John Thomas on TBBETA typed on: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 at 13:43:59 GMT -0700 JT I wish Ritlabs would make their program a great IMAP client And me! -- Tony. Using The Bat! v3.61.11 Echo (Beta) on a G5 iMac Current beta is 3.61.11 (Echo) | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first - http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/
Re: Adventures with TB
--On 10/10/2005 19:32 -0500 Curtis wrote: OTOH, TB! is faster at retrieving the data than Mulberry. I know this is a well-discussed topic but I'm afraid this is just not true - at least here. My biggest gripe about TB! and its IMAP implementation is the sheer turgid feel of the prog while its working. Recent betas have become unusable again but if I feel the urge to use TB! for a particular resaon I fire up 3.60.01, the ONLY version where its speed matches Mulberry. -- Clive Taylor Current beta is 3.61.11 (Echo) | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first - http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/
Re: Adventures with TB
On Tuesday, October 11, 2005, at 01:36 AM, Clive Taylor wrote: I know this is a well-discussed topic but I'm afraid this is just not true - at least here. My biggest gripe about TB! and its IMAP implementation is the sheer turgid feel of the prog while its working. Recent betas have become unusable again but if I feel the urge to use TB! for a particular resaon I fire up 3.60.01, the ONLY version where its speed matches Mulberry. Let me give you an idea of what I mean. When I start up Mulberry, it starts with a clean cache. It does a quick message count check. TB! does a lot more when it displays those counts. Not only does it do a simple count, but it updates the message list since if you open the folder, you'll see the new messages listed. It also does flag updates. If you have thousands of messages in each folder, then this can take a while. When I now select a folder in Mulberry, it downloads just the last 20 headers. Only 20!. That folder could have 10,000 or 30,000 messages in it. Mulberry downloads only the last 20 so that you can get going with reading. However, TB! needs to retrieve the entire message list before you can read a single message. TB! also has to maintain and keep up to date that message list. Mulberry doesn't. I vividly recall using Mulberry with MDaemon that doesn't support server side threading. Whenever I selected threading, Mulberry would ask if I wish to thread the entire list or just those messages displayed. If I chose the entire list, Mulberry would spend an eternity retrieving the entire message list. It takes LONGER than TB! to do the same. Ask Gary about it. :) Mulberry's speed comes from efficiency. You do far more with much less transfer of data. TB! is doing too much in the background and requires too much data transfer to be productive. Those who synchronise folders, especially large folders, exponentially increase the size of transfer making things even that much worse. This is an ongoing thing too, even after getting the entire lists headers. Each time I select my TBBETA folder after new messages are retrieved, there's this pause as TB! goes through the process of verifying the flags etc. for all 3500 messages. Mulberry does none of that since it doesn't work that way. As a result it works faster. -- -= Curtis=- Using TB! v3.61.10 Echo (Beta) System Specs: http://specs.aimlink.name =-=-= ...I hit the CTRL key but I'm still not in control! pgpwpOrxGmwbc.pgp Description: PGP signature Current beta is 3.61.11 (Echo) | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first - http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/
Re: Adventures with TB
When I now select a folder in Mulberry, it downloads just the last 20 headers. Only 20!. That folder could have 10,000 or 30,000 messages in it. Mulberry downloads only the last 20 so that you can get going with reading. Not here it doesn't, Curtis. I've set it to download 100 messages and it's still infinitely quicker than TB! If I chose the entire list, Mulberry would spend an eternity retrieving the entire message list. It takes LONGER than TB! to do the same. Ask Gary about it. :) Again, not here. Serverside threading is transparent. It's Thunderbird that has a problem in this area for me. Mulberry's speed comes from efficiency. You do far more with much less transfer of data. TB! is doing too much in the background and requires too much data transfer to be productive I'd buy that. It's the difference in philosophy between a POP and IMAP developed client, I suppose. -- Clive Taylor Current beta is 3.61.11 (Echo) | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first - http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/
Re: Adventures with TB
Hi Clive, --On Tuesday, October 11, 2005 4:35 PM +0100 you wrote in part: When I now select a folder in Mulberry, it downloads just the last 20 headers. Only 20!. That folder could have 10,000 or 30,000 messages in it. Mulberry downloads only the last 20 so that you can get going with reading. Not here it doesn't, Curtis. I've set it to download 100 messages and it's still infinitely quicker than TB! IIRC, Curtis initially set it to 20 as he was at work using a very slow connection to his server back home (at that time). Currently, I find TB! and the Berry to download about the same, in speed... However, my servers are on a LAN.. so it is easy to say... When on the road, connecting to my servers back home, Mulberry was much faster in downloading and manipulating email, but that is how it is structured to handle IMAP, as Curtis' email explained. If I chose the entire list, Mulberry would spend an eternity retrieving the entire message list. It takes LONGER than TB! to do the same. Ask Gary about it. :) Again, not here. Serverside threading is transparent. It's Thunderbird that has a problem in this area for me. Clive, is your IMAP server locally on your LAN, or outside? Mulberry's speed comes from efficiency. You do far more with much less transfer of data. TB! is doing too much in the background and requires too much data transfer to be productive I'd buy that. It's the difference in philosophy between a POP and IMAP developed client, I suppose. very much agreed. -- Gary Current beta is 3.61.11 (Echo) | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first - http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/
Re: Adventures with TB
On Tuesday, October 11, 2005, at 10:35 AM, Clive Taylor wrote: Not here it doesn't, Curtis. I've set it to download 100 messages and it's still infinitely quicker than TB! That's still far less than thousands or hundreds. :) If I chose the entire list, Mulberry would spend an eternity retrieving the entire message list. It takes LONGER than TB! to do the same. Ask Gary about it. :) Again, not here. Serverside threading is transparent. This is the point. Mulberry takes advantage of server side threading. So it still doesn't have to retrieve as much data. It's very good at this. It's Thunderbird that has a problem in this area for me. ... and guess why? ThunderBird needs to download all the folder message list data prior to your being able to browse; just as TB! does. This is why ThunderBird just doesn't factor in for me anymore. Mulberry's speed comes from efficiency. You do far more with much less transfer of data. TB! is doing too much in the background and requires too much data transfer to be productive I'd buy that. It's the difference in philosophy between a POP and IMAP developed client, I suppose. I guess. -- -= Curtis=- Using TB! v3.61.10 Echo (Beta) System Specs: http://specs.aimlink.name =-=-= ...Defeat isn't bitter if you don't swallow it. pgpktXkGbBQFV.pgp Description: PGP signature Current beta is 3.61.11 (Echo) | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first - http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/
Re: Adventures with TB
Hello Gary, Tuesday, October 11, 2005, 5:03:47 PM, you wrote: Clive, is your IMAP server locally on your LAN, or outside? The two servers I use are outside - the main one being FastMail. -- Regards, Clive Taylor TheBat!:3.61.11 Echo (Beta) Windows XP: Service Pack 2 Current beta is 3.61.11 (Echo) | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first - http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/
Re: Adventures with TB
On Tuesday, October 11, 2005, 1:25:36 PM, Gleason Pace wrote: If a person's concern is to find an example that works well and learn from it, the economic status of the producing company seems irrelevant. In fact, what is this status relevant to? Only thing I can see is inability to buy new licenses, which could be a big problem for an IT department, or someone who delayed upgrading -- Dwight A. Corrin 928 S Broadway Wichita KS 67211 316.303.1411 fax 316.265.7568 dcorrin at fastmail.fm Using The Bat! 3.61.11 Echo (Beta) on Windows XP version 5,1 Current beta is 3.61.11 (Echo) | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first - http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/
Re: Adventures with TB
In all fairness, the company is now in Chapter 7. My question is aimed at trying to find the real comparison that would be used. One of my criteria is that the software has be a going concern. Not one from a ceased company. I suspect that Mulberry will continue to be relevant and wanted for a number of years yet irrespective of the state of the company, because a number of academic institutions have invested so many resources into the prog. There's also a feeling in the Mulberry group that it might be possible for it to go open source. Time will tell, but the feeling of the more vocal members of the group is that Thunderbird might be an acceptable alternative in the long run shudder. -- Regards Clive Taylor Current beta is 3.61.11 (Echo) | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first - http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/
Re: Adventures with TB
Time will tell, but the feeling of the more vocal members of the group is that Thunderbird might be an acceptable alternative in the long run shudder. I wish Ritlabs would make their program a great IMAP client or at least state their position so I know if I should go to TBird. -- Best regards, John Thomas Using The Bat! v3.61.11 Echo (Beta) on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 Current beta is 3.61.11 (Echo) | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first - http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/
Re: Adventures with TB
TB has been doing normal tasks so well lately that I thought I might look at some of the other things it can do. I saw in the folder context menu that I can move folders up/down and in/out. There are some folders at the bottom of the hierarchy that I would like to move up. TB did that without problem. I tried to delete the old container folder. TB gave an AV error it could not recover from. I can confirm the inability of TB! to manage IMAP folders well. Further, I had similar experiences and frustrations with IMAP as you have had. Make sure your turn off all syncronizing options. You will still not be able to manage IMAP folder well, but at least you will be able to do work. Perhaps this turn off syncronizing should be a FAQ on TB!'s main page under IMAP. -- Best regards, John Thomas Using The Bat! v3.61.11 Echo (Beta) on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 Current beta is 3.61.11 (Echo) | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first - http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/
Re: Adventures with TB
On 10/10/2005 at 6:13:42 PM [GMT -0500], Gleason Pace wrote: TB has been doing normal tasks so well lately that I thought I might look at some of the other things it can do. I saw in the folder context menu that I can move folders up/down and in/out. There are some folders at the bottom of the hierarchy that I would like to move up. TB did that without problem. I tried to delete the old container folder. TB gave an AV error it could not recover from. Close and reopen TB. I opened the Manage IMAP Folders window and clicked on Reset List. (opening the Manage IMAP folders window while writing a new message crashes TB) The Reset List function in this context duplicates folders at the lowest level. If there were 4 subfolders in an area, Reset List makes it 8. Reset List again makes it 12. I can delete one of the duplicates. This causes all the other duplicates to show a 0 message count. Close and reopen TB. Now all the moved folders show 0 message count. Clear Message Cache has no effect. You happened upon one of TB!'s problems. I'd suggest that you only do basic folder creation and moving folders up and down the list. Do not make one folder a sub-folder of another or the reverse. This leads to the effect you described. I was able to recover from the mess by renaming account.flb. Among other undesirable side effect this caused TB to spend better than an hour retrieving all 12,000 message headers. TB was unable to complete this task without crashing. The whole retrieval operation was unnecessary. Mulberry is able to deal with this situation with no noticeable interruption of program usage. For you to browse a folder, TB! needs to build a local cache of the message list. Mulberry doesn't have to do this, hence the difference. If you tell Mulberry to do what TB! needs to do, it will take longer than TB! does. Mulberry does far less for you to work. It's extremely efficient. OTOH, TB! is faster at retrieving the data than Mulberry. It's just that TB! retrieves so much information in order to get going. -- -= Curtis =- The Bat! v3.61.11 Echo (Beta) / http://specs.aimlink.name PGPKey: http://rsakey.aimlink.name ...The world is a cynic's playground. pgpLCwdf3F4tV.pgp Description: PGP signature Current beta is 3.61.11 (Echo) | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first - http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/
